Wow, China and Russia issued an extraordinary joint statement yesterday, with almost 8,000 words when translated into English, and in many ways more important than the famous "no limits" partnership statement in February 2022.
Here are the points that stood out for me.
BUILDING A NEW WORLD ORDER
The statement says that it is an "objective factor" that "the status and strength of emerging major countries and regions in the 'Global South' [are] continuously increasing", and that "the trend of world multipolarity [is] accelerating". This in turn "accelerates the redistribution of development potential, resources, and opportunities in a direction favorable to emerging markets and developing countries, promoting the democratization of international relations and international fairness and justice".
They point out that "countries that adhere to hegemonism and power politics are contrary to this trend, attempting to replace and subvert the international order based on international law with a so-called 'rules-based order'".
Security-wise, the statement says that "both sides believe that the fate of the peoples of all countries is interconnected, and no country should seek its own security at the expense of others' security. Both sides express concern about the current international and regional security challenges and point out that in the current geopolitical context, it is necessary to explore the establishment of a sustainable security system in the Eurasian space based on the principle of equal and indivisible security."
They go on to say that China and Russia "will fully tap the potential of bilateral relations" in order to "promote the realization of an equal and orderly multipolar world and the democratization of international relations, and gather strength to build a just and reasonable multipolar world".
As for the vision of this world order these 2 principles seem to be the foundational ones: 1) An order with no "neo-colonialism and hegemonism" of any kind: "All countries have the right to independently choose their development models and political, economic, and social systems based on their national conditions and people's will, oppose interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, oppose unilateral sanctions and 'long-arm jurisdiction' without international law basis or UN Security Council authorization, and oppose drawing ideological lines. Both sides pointed out that neo-colonialism and hegemonism are completely contrary to the trend of the times, and called for equal dialogue, the development of partnerships, and the promotion of exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations." 2) An order based on the UN Charter: "Both sides will continue to firmly defend the achievements of World War II and the post-war world order established by the UN Charter"
EXTREMELY STRONG CONDEMNATION OF THE US
This condemnation starts with the paragraph highlighted above that "countries that adhere to hegemonism and power politics are contrary to [the trend towards a multipolar world order]", and the statement also condemns the fact that these "countries" (i.e. mostly the US) are "attempting to replace and subvert the international order based on international law with a so-called 'rules-based order'".
They also write that "both sides call on relevant countries and organizations to stop taking confrontational policies and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, undermining the existing security architecture, creating 'small yards with high fences' among countries, provoking regional tensions, and advocating for camp confrontation."
They further say that "both sides oppose the hegemonic actions of the United States to change the balance of power in the Northeast Asia region by expanding its military presence and forming military blocs. The US, with its Cold War mentality and camp confrontation model, puts 'small group' security above regional security and stability, endangering the security of all countries in the region. The US should stop such actions."
On top of that the statement speaks of "serious concern about the United States' attempts to undermine strategic stability to maintain its absolute military superiority, including building a global missile defense system and deploying missile defense systems around the world and in space, strengthening the ability to disable the opponent's military actions with precision non-nuclear weapons and 'decapitation' strikes, enhancing NATO's 'nuclear sharing' arrangements in Europe and providing 'extended deterrence' to specific allies, constructing infrastructure in the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone treaty member Australia that could be used to support US and UK nuclear forces, engaging in US-UK-Australia nuclear submarine cooperation, and implementing plans to deploy and provide land-based intermediate-range and short-range missiles to allies in the Asia-Pacific and Europe."
The statement also condemns "the United States' unconstructive and hostile 'dual containment' policy towards China and Russia": "The United States' actions of conducting joint exercises with its allies ostensibly aimed at China and Russia and taking steps to deploy land-based intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region have raised serious concerns for both sides. The United States claims it will continue these practices with the ultimate goal of establishing routine missile deployments worldwide. Both sides strongly condemn these actions, which are extremely destabilizing to the region and pose a direct security threat to China and Russia, and will strengthen coordination and cooperation to respond to the United States' unconstructive and hostile 'dual containment' policy towards China and Russia."
On Asia-Pacific specifically they write that "both sides oppose the creation of exclusive and closed group structures in the Asia-Pacific region, especially military alliances targeting any third party. Both sides point out that the US "Indo-Pacific Strategy" and NATO's attempts to take destructive actions in the Asia-Pacific region have negative impacts on the peace and stability of the region."
They also "demand that the United States refrain from engaging in any biological military activities that threaten the security of other countries and regions" and they oppose the "use [of] outer space for armed confrontation and oppose the implementation of security policies and activities aimed at achieving military advantage and defining outer space as a 'combat domain.'"
Lastly the statement condemns "the US and its allies' deterrent actions in the military field, provoking confrontation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and exacerbating tensions on the Korean Peninsula, potentially leading to armed conflict", and asks that "the United States and NATO, as the responsible parties for the 20-year invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, should not attempt to deploy military facilities in Afghanistan and its surrounding areas again but should bear primary responsibility for Afghanistan's current economic and livelihood difficulties, bear the main costs of Afghanistan's reconstruction, and take all necessary measures to unfreeze Afghanistan's national assets."
ENORMOUS EXPANSION OF CHINA-RUSSIA COLLABORATION
This will be my last point, the statement has an immense list - dozens and dozens of items - of expanded cooperation fields between both countries.
These are some of the most important ones:
- Military cooperation: "[both sides] will further deepen military mutual trust and cooperation, expand the scale of joint training activities, regularly organize joint maritime and air patrols, strengthen coordination and cooperation within bilateral and multilateral frameworks, and continuously improve the ability and level of jointly responding to risks and challenges."
- More trade, mutual investments and help each other economic development: "continuously expand the scale of bilateral trade", "continuously improve the level of investment cooperation between the two countries", and "jointly develop advanced industries, strengthen technical and production cooperation, including in the civil aviation manufacturing industry, shipbuilding industry, automobile manufacturing industry, equipment manufacturing industry, electronics industry, metallurgical industry, iron ore mining industry, chemical industry, and forest industry"
- Cooperation on energy: "consolidate the strategic cooperation in energy between China and Russia and achieve high-level development, ensuring the economic and energy security of the two countries. Strive to ensure the stability and sustainability of the international energy market, and maintain the stability and resilience of the global energy industry chain and supply chain." Also nuclear energy: "deepen cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy based on the experience of successful and ongoing projects, including thermonuclear fusion, fast neutron reactors, and closed nuclear fuel cycles"
- Promote each others' currencies and financial infrastructure: "Increase the proportion of local currency in bilateral trade, financing, and other economic activities. Improve the financial infrastructure of the two countries, smooth the settlement channels between the two countries' business entities, strengthen regulatory cooperation in the banking and insurance industries of China and Russia, promote the sound development of banks and insurance institutions established in each other's countries, encourage two-way investment, and issue bonds in the financial markets of each other's countries in accordance with market principles."
- Deep education and scientific cooperation: "promote the expansion and improvement of quality in mutual study abroad programs, advance Chinese language teaching in Russia and Russian language teaching in China, encourage educational institutions to expand exchanges, cooperation in running schools, conduct high-level talent joint training and scientific research, support cooperation in basic research fields between universities, support activities of alliances of similar universities and high schools, and deepen cooperation in vocational and digital education"
- Cooperation in the media and shaping public opinions: "Strengthen media exchanges between the two countries, promote mutual visits at various levels, support pragmatic and professional dialogues, actively carry out high-quality content cooperation, deeply explore the cooperation potential of new media and new technologies in the field of mass media, objectively and comprehensively report major global events, and spread true information in the international public opinion field."
- Cooperation within global institutions: "deepen bilateral cooperation [at] the UN General Assembly and the Security Council", "supporting the role of the World Health Organization", "strengthen cooperation within the WTO framework", "cooperation within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)", "uphold the BRICS spirit, enhance the BRICS mechanism's voice in international affairs and agenda", etc.
I could go on and on, the scale of the cooperation they detail is absolutely breathtaking, both countries are going all in with each other.
This statement is absolutely extraordinary and will likely shape the world for decades to come. We now have Russia and China explicitly stating they're all in with each other to bring about a new "equal and orderly multipolar world and the democratization of international relations", and put an end to US hegemonic behavior. No more pretend, it's happening.
That's the link to the statement, by the way (in Chinese, I couldn't find a version in English): chinanews.com.cn/gn/2024/05-16/…
On Ukraine, this part of the statement may be significant: "Russia positively evaluates China's objective and fair position on the Ukraine issue and agrees with the view that the crisis must be resolved on the basis of full compliance with the UN Charter."
Because "full compliance with the UN Charter" would imply respecting Article 2 on territorial integrity...
Let's see... Apparently Xi and Putin had an "in-depth exchange of views on the Ukraine crisis" with Xi quoted as wanting "an early political settlement of the Ukraine issue" so we'll likely see some initiatives around this.
The statement also says that "both sides believe that to steadily resolve the Ukraine crisis, the root causes of the crisis must be eliminated, the principle of indivisible security must be upheld, and the reasonable security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken into account."
"The root causes", from China and Russia's perspective, of course being NATO expansion and the attempt to transform Ukraine into a western bulwark against Russia. Does this mean that if these "root causes" are "eliminated" (presumably meaning that Ukraine becomes neutral), then Russia would agree to withdraw its troops, i.e. an agreement similar to the one that was almost signed in Istanbul in March 2022? I don't know, again let's see...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This strange square 👇 is undoubtedly the most extraordinary work of literature in human history. Yet, unfortunately, barely anyone in the West has ever heard of it.
There was this woman poet in 4th century China called Su Hui (蘇蕙), a child genius who had reportedly mastered Chinese characters by age 3.
At 21 years old, heartbroken by her husband who left her for another woman, she decided to encode her feelings in a structure so intricate, so beautiful, so intellectually staggering that it still baffles scholars to this day.
Came to be known as the Xuanji Tu (璇璣圖) - the "Star Gauge" or "Map of the Armillary Sphere" - it's a 29 by 29 grid of 841 characters that can produce over 4,000 different poems.
Read it forward. Read it backward. Read it horizontally, vertically, diagonally. Read it spiraling outward from the center. Read it in circles around the outer edge. Each path through the grid produces a different poem - all of them coherent, all of them beautiful, all of them rhyming, all of them expressing variations on the same themes of longing, betrayal, regret, and undying love.
The outer ring of 112 characters forms a single circular poem - believed to be both the first and longest of its kind ever written. The interior grid produces 2,848 different four-line poems of seven characters each. In addition, there are hundreds of other smaller and longer poems, depending on the reading method.
At the center a single character she left implied but unwritten: 心 (xin) - "heart." Later copyists would add it explicitly, but in Su Hui's original the meaning was even more beautiful: 4,000 poems, all orbiting the space where her heart used to be.
Take for instance the outer red grid of the Star Gauge. Starting from the top right corner and reading down, you get this seven-character quatrain:
仁智懷德聖虞唐,
貞志篤終誓穹蒼,
欽所感想妄淫荒,
心憂增慕懷慘傷。
In pinyin, it is:
Rén zhì huái dé shèng yú táng,
zhēnzhì dǔ zhōng shì qióng cāng,
qīn suǒ gǎnxiǎng wàng yín huāng,
xīn yōu zēng mù huái cǎn shāng.
Notice how it rhymes? táng / cāng / huāng / shāng
The rough translation in English is: "The benevolent and wise cherish virtue, like the sage-kings Yao and Shun, With steadfast will I swear to the heavens above, What I revere and feel - how could it be wanton or dissolute? My heart's sorrow grows, longing brings only grief."
Now read it from the bottom to the top and you get this entirely different seven-character quatrain:
傷慘懷慕增憂心,
荒淫妄想感所欽,
蒼穹誓終篤志貞,
唐虞聖德懷智仁。
And the meaning is just as beautiful and coherent: "Grief and sorrow, longing fills my worried heart, Wanton and dissolute fantasies - is that what you revere? I swear to the heavens my constancy is true, May we embody the sage-kings' virtue, wisdom, and benevolence."
That's just 2 poems out of the over 4,000 you can construct from the Xuanji Tu!
At the very center of the grid, the 8 red characters wrapped around the central heart, she "signed" her poem with a hidden message:
詩圖璇玑,始平蘇氏。 "The poem-picture of the Armillary Sphere, by Su of Shiping."
Or reversed:
蘇氏詩圖,璇玑始平。 "Su's poem-picture - the Armillary Sphere begins in peace."
Many scholars, and even emperors, throughout Chinese history have been completely obsessed by Su Hui's puzzle.
For instance, in the Ming dynasty, a scholar named Kang Wanmin (康萬民) devoted his entire life to the poems (kangshiw.com/contents/461/2…), ending up documenting twelve different reading methods - forward, backward, diagonal, radiating, corner-to-corner, spiraling - and extracting 4,206 poems. His book on the subject ("Reading Methods for the Xuanji Tu Poems", 璇璣圖詩讀法) runs to hundreds of pages.
Empress Wu Zetian herself, the legendary woman emperor of the Tang dynasty, wrote a preface to the Xuanji Tu around 692 CE (baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%BB%87…).
Incredibly, there's even far more complexity to the Xuanji Tu than just the poems:
- The name 璇玑 (Xuanji) - Armillary Sphere - is astronomical in meaning and the way the poems can be read mirrors the way celestial bodies orbit around a fixed center. It's a model of the heavens.
- Her original work, with the characters woven on silk brocade, was in five colors (red, black, blue/green, purple, and yellow) which correspond to the Five Elements (五行) - the foundational Chinese philosophical system that explains how the universe operates. So it's also a model of the entire cosmic order according to ancient Chinese philosophy.
- It's also of course deeply mathematical with this 29 x 29 perfect square grid, with sub-squares, lines and rectangles, and a structure which allows for symmetrical reading patterns in all directions
- Last but not least, the content of the poems themselves contain multiple registers. On top of expressing her personal grief and longing for her husband, it's also filled with accusations against the concubine (Zhao Yangtai) he left her for, reflections on politics (with many references to sage-kings) and philosophical reflections.
So the Star Gauge is simultaneously:
- A love letter (expressing personal longing)
- A legal brief (arguing her case against her rival)
- A cosmological model (structured like the heavens)
- A Five Element diagram (encoding the fundamental structure of the world according to ancient Chinese philosophy)
- A mathematical construction with perfect symmetry and precision
And yet, for all this complexity, we should not forget this was all ultimately in service of the simplest human message imaginable: a 21-year-old woman asking the love of her life "come back to me".
Her husband did, eventually. According to what empress Wu Zetian herself wrote in her preface to the Xuanji Tu, when he received Su's brocade he was so "moved by its supreme beauty" that he sent away his concubine and returned to his wife. As the story goes, they lived together until old age.
This is big. The final U.S. National Security Strategy was just published and the refocus on the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) is confirmed.
The document clearly establishes this as the U.S.'s number 1 priority, saying that the U.S. will now "assert and enforce a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine."
In terms of military presence, they write that this means "a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years."
On China, a couple of points.
The most striking aspect to me is that China is NOT anymore defined as "the" primary threat, "most consequential challenge," "pacing threat," or similar formulations used in previous such documents.
It's clearly downgraded as a priority. Based on the document's structure and emphasis, the top U.S. priorities could be characterized as: 1) Homeland security and borders (migration, cartels, etc.) 2) Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine restoration) 3) Economic security (reindustrialization, supply chains) 4) China and Indo-Pacific
To be clear they don't define China as an ally or a partner in any shape or form but primarily as 1) an economic competitor, 2) a source of supply chain vulnerabilities (but also a trading partner) and 3) a player who regional dominance should be "ideally" denied because it "has major implications for the U.S. economy."
Interestingly, I believe for the first time ever, they mention the possibility of being overmatched militarily by China:
- They write that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority": "ideally" clearly means that it's ideal, but not necessarily a given. The fact that they call deterring conflict over Taiwan merely "a priority" also suggests, by definition, that it's no more a top strategic priority, or a vital interest.
- On Taiwan they also clearly imply that if the U.S.'s "First Island Chain allies" don't "step up and spend - and more importantly do - much more for collective defense", then there might be "a balance of forces so unfavorable to us as to make defending that island impossible."
They still maintain that "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" but, clearly, there's a widening gap between what the US says it opposes and what it's actually willing to do about it.
Interestingly as well, contrary to previous such document, there is zero ideological dimension in the document when it comes to China. No "democracy vs. autocracy" framing, no "rules-based international order" to defend, no values-based crusade. China is treated as a practical issue to be managed, not an ideological adversary to be defeated.
In fact the document explicitly mentions, I think for the first time ever as well, that US policy is now:
- "not grounded in traditional, political ideology"
- that they "seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories"
- and that they seek "good relations with nations whose governing systems differ from ours."
Which is quite a stunning departure from the rhetoric of the past few decades. We all knew this but it's now amply clear that the era of missionary liberal internationalism in US foreign policy is dead and buried.
The competition with China is primarily described in economic terms, explicitly so: they write the competition is about "winning the economic future" and that economics are "the ultimate stakes."
Notably, they admit that the tariffs approach "that began in 2017" when it comes to China essentially failed because "China adapted" and has "strengthened its hold on supply chains."
The new strategy, as described in the document, is to build an economic coalition against China that can exert more leverage than the US economy alone - a tacit admission that America just isn't powerful enough on its own anymore.
The contradiction is however obvious: unclear how you build an economic coalition against China while simultaneously waging trade wars against your coalition partners, demanding they shoulder more of their own defense, and treating every allied relationship as a deal to be renegotiated in America's favor.
At some point these "allies" will be asking a very obvious question: why sacrifice our economic interests to prop up an America that can no longer compete on its own - and that offers us less and less in return?
In a normal world, this should be an immense scandal in Europe.
Le Monde has a long article (lemonde.fr/international/…) describing the hellish life of Nicolas Guillou, a French judge at the ICC in The Hague, due to U.S. sanctions punishing him for authorizing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes in Gaza.
Guillou's daily existence has been transformed into a Kafkaesque nightmare. He cannot: open or maintain accounts with Google, Amazon, Apple, or any US company; make hotel reservations (Expedia canceled his booking in France hours after he made it); conduct online commerce, since he can't know if the packaging is American; use any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Amex are all American); access normal banking services, even with non-American banks, as banks worldwide close sanctioned accounts; conduct virtually any financial transaction.
He describes it as being "economically banned across most of the planet," including in his own country, France, and where he works, the Netherlands.
That's the real shocking aspect of this: the Americans are:
- punishing a European citizen
- for doing his job in Europe
- applying laws Europe officially supports
- at an institution based in Europe
- that Europe helped create and fund
and Europe is not only doing essentially nothing to protect him, they're actively enforcing America's sanctions against their own citizen - European banks closing his accounts, European companies refusing him service, European institutions standing by while Washington destroys a European judge's life on European soil.
Again, in a normal world, European leaders and citizens should be absolutely outraged about this. But we've so normalized the hollowing out of European sovereignty that the sight of a European citizen being economically executed on European soil for upholding European law is treated, at best, as an unfortunate technical complication in transatlantic relations.
I already wrote about this when I visited the ICC this summer 👇
We're on the edge of Europe's most humiliating moment in history.
The White House is apparently about to achieve a comprehensive peace deal with Russia which Kirill Dmitriev, the Russian negotiator, say is "a much broader framework [than just a ceasefire agreement], basically saying, 'How do we really bring, finally, lasting security to Europe, not just Ukraine.'"
So in effect it looks like this is an agreement which redraws the entire European security architecture.
The thing, however, is that Europeans are NOT part of the discussions and, when asked about them, the White House replied: “We don't really care about the Europeans.”
This would make it probably the first time EVER in history that Europe's security is decided completely by outside forces, as a proxy with zero say in its own fate (indeed with explicit contempt for its input).
I actually looked into this for my August article "Not at the table: Europe's colonial moment" (arnaudbertrand.substack.com/p/not-at-the-t…). The only comparable parallel I could find is the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But even this was a somewhat “classic” military defeat where the victor simply dictated terms. At the time, there wasn't another external power negotiating with the Ottomans about how to carve up Byzantine territory - it was at least a straightforward conquest.
Don't misunderstand me. I'll be the first to applaud if the Ukraine war comes to an end. It was, as I have argued since day 1 (x.com/RnaudBertrand/…), one of the most predictable and therefore one of the most avoidable wars in history.
BUT, and this is a huge "but", having your continent's security architecture redesigned without you sets a catastrophic precedent: it defines Europe as nothing more than geography to be bargained over by others.
This is the natural consequence of decades of appalling strategic choices by Europeans, starting with the fundamental decision to outsource their security to NATO - effectively to Washington - rather than building genuine strategic autonomy. This shaped how Europe dealt with both Russia and Ukraine: following hawkish US policy, dictated by its own interests to keep Eurasia divided ("divide and conquer"), as opposed to Europe's own interests which clearly lay in continental integration and stability.
Now we see the wages of these choices: a continent whose opinion literally doesn't matter when its security is being negotiated.
Caveat: Tass (Russia's official news agency) says "Russia has no OFFICIAL information from US about some 'agreements'" 👇 x.com/imetatronink/s…
The emphasis on "official" is mine because this means there is *unofficial* information, which is indeed the case here given that the talks between Steve Witkoff (Trump envoy) and Kirill Dmitriev (who runs Russia's sovereign wealth fund) are backchannel negotiations.
My point still stands of course: the White House - backchannel or not - is negotiating with Russia without Europe at the table and they did say they "don't really care about the Europeans." Europe wasn't at the table either during Trump's *official* discussion with Putin in Alaska this summer.
Which means that even if this particular deal falls through or the timeline is premature, the pattern is clear: Europe's security is something the U.S. and Russia discuss between themselves and Europe isn't a participant in these conversations - it's the subject matter.
This is hilarious:
Witkoff posted as a public tweet which he undoubtedly meant as PM (and that he since deleted) that the story must have been leaked by "K", which could refer to the Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev or Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine.
This is a genuinely incredible story: China found in U.S. archives an energy source that could power its entire future for 20,000 years - and they just made it work.
I'm not exaggerating. In the 1960s the U.S. - specifically Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee - invented a revolutionary type of nuclear reactor that could run on thorium instead of uranium (much more abundant and cheaper), with no meltdown risk, generating 50x less waste, and requiring no water. Then, due to messy politics, they killed the program in 1969 and fired the visionary behind it.
Afterwards the declassified blueprints for the project sat forgotten in archives for decades. That is until Chinese scientists found them and decided in 2011 to run an experimental project in the Gansu desert to see if they could make it work.
A few days ago, after 14 years of work, they finally did.
I spent many days researching this and wrote the full story - how the technology works, the bureaucratic politics that killed it in America, and why this could genuinely be game-changing.
300 million tourists a year, free to roam everywhere unimpeded in Xinjiang, and still not a single photo evidence of this so-called "Uyghur genocide" 🤔
On the contrary you do get an overwhelming amount of photo evidence of Uyghurs just living normal lives.
Compare and contrast this with Gaza: zero tourist (or journalist, or anyone) allowed in and you still get overwhelming photo evidence.
Because, guess what, in the age of social when people are actually being mistreated and mass murdered, you can't hide it.
You can't hide it in a place that's completely blockaded, you can hide it even less in a place that's fully open to anyone (many foreigners, like almost all European countries, don't even need a visa nowadays to enter China and Xinjiang).
The BBC - which previously pushed the Xinjiang narrative hard - is trying hard to square this circle by claiming "there's a side of Xinjiang" that these 300 million tourists "don't see."
And what is that "side they don't see" according to the article? That even though the Uyghurs are there and Uyghur culture is everywhere, that's apparently not "the real Uyghur culture" because, as they claim, old towns were rebuilt for tourism and tourists see made-for-tourism ethnic performances.
Except this is literally how tourism development works everywhere in China (and pretty much everywhere in the world, frankly). Heck, this is how development - period - works: no-one wants to see the "real" old town from 1970s China because, guess what, it was completely run down and poor AF.
I partially grew up myself in a street of Paris called "rue Mouffetard" in the extremely touristic 5th arrondissement. The name of the street comes from the old French verb "mouffeter", which means to stink: this street used to be famous for smelling like shit because it was a very poor area of Paris back in the old days. Should it have been left as such so that people get to experience the "real" Paris instead of the heavily gentrified "Emily in Paris" version you get today? Anyone with a brain can see how idiotic that is.
Anyhow that's the new - utterly ridiculous - narrative: "the visible Uyghur culture doesn't count because things got redeveloped and updated."
Well, at least the Western media narrative seems to have been downgraded from crimes against humanity to "we don't like their tourism development model" - progress, I guess...